More IPCC AR5: THE SECRET SANTA LEAK

Guest post by Donna Laframboise

Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle, bringing in Greenpeace again.

A week before Christmas, three data sticks containing 661 files and amounting to nearly one gigabyte of material came into my possession. They were created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body currently at work on a high-profile report.

Due to be released in stages starting in September, this report will be promoted by government press conferences the world over. Officials will point to its findings and continue to spend billions on climate change measures.

The IPCC has confirmed the authenticity of sample documents on these sticks. Today, I’m making this massive collection of data, (with reviewer comments), which I call the Secret Santa leak, public. Some of these documents are already online. Many others would only have been released by the IPCC years from now. Still others the IPCC intended to keep hidden forever.

There’s a lot of information here and I’ve only examined a small portion of it so far. But a few things are certain. First, this leak – together with the one that occurred last month – places draft versions of a majority of the IPCC’s upcoming report in the public domain. Forty-four out of 60 chapters – 73% – are now available for examination. The claim, by the IPCC’s chairman, that this is a “totally transparent” organization and that whatever it does is “available for scrutiny at every stage” is closer than ever to being true.

Second, the IPCC hasn’t learned a thing from the Himalayan glacier scandal. Under the guise of “scientific expert review,” it recently permitted aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying of its authors by WWF employees and other activists. The draft version of the Working Group 2 report currently lists publications produced by the WWF and Greenpeace among its end-of-chapter references.

A 2010 investigation identified “significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process.” The time to shine light on this organization is now. If activists employed by lobby groups can read draft versions of this report, so can the public.

I encourage you to download your own copies. If anyone has the technical skill to make all of this data available – and searchable – online, that would be welcome, indeed.

First Order Draft torrent: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FEABA896B40807B21E34138183CFE28C2962B248&dn=WGIIAR5_FODall.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce

please leave your client active for a few hours to help speed up other people’s download

Donna, many passionate thanks for your courageous work. I sometimes wonder why we can’t all get together and fund a legitimate, statistically valid survey of scientists regarding their degree of acceptance of the IPCC position and the CAGW case in general. Whenever I get into an argument with an alarmist, they almost always bring up that absurd 97 percent number..If we could demonstrate that there is indeed a significant percentage of smart, qualified people with profound reservations, well, I can’t think of a more powerful argument against the establishment position and the widespread laughable belief that the “science is settled.” And yet I never hear of anyone suggesting something along these lines…

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:10 am

Adam Gallon

Ah good, more light to be shone into the murky depths of the IPCC’s processes.

OMG 🙂
Climate science is indeed starting to become a transparent pursuit.
The only thing that seems sure is that he likes of the BBC will brazenly ignore this content and continue pushing alarmism for all they are worth…..

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:14 am

John F. Hultquist

I was hoping the announcement was going to be a cancellation of the report and a disbandment of the IPCC. That would be the appropriate response to the ‘1st Rule of Holes’.
Those are huge files for old computers and computer old folks, but I do agree with Mango – wow!

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:15 am

Phillip Bratby

Three cheers for the Christmas whistle-blower. He knew where to go – well done Donna.

Anthony
Chapter 23 first link points to a chapter 22 source
REPLY: we’ll look at that – thx A

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:17 am

Sam the First

Great work – I hope we have the people on here to make best use of all this information.
How to make those who should read and study all this, is the question. Prince Charles this week has been a prime example of those who claim to understand the arguments and have the ears of the media, yet fail to follow the scientific case, to keep up with developments, or to ever question their own basic premises.

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:18 am

Eliza

I wonder if it even worth paying or giving any attention to such a discredited organization as the IPCC. This sort of thing of gives them some “sort of an authority” which they should not even have.Most of the output is pure BS anyway. Surely they will be diluting the message over the years as climate does not “change”the way they want it to, but still waste billions of dollars on a non- event

Note: I had to change the magnet URI’s to :
“magnet:?xt=urn…” to make them work in uTorrent.
(Add the question mark)

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:23 am

iskoob

¡Vive l’information!
As usual, the alarmists are doing everything they can to suppress information; the non-alarmists are doing everything they can to liberate it.
I think we can safely say the myth about non-alarmists being anti-science stands busted without the possibility of parole. Who’s in denial now, biatches?

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:29 am

stricq

The magnet links are broken. Please post links to the actual torrents.

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:33 am

Marco

Thank you Donna for making this information available and for your perspective!
The “delinquent teenager” is not yet grown up.

The magnet links don’t seem to work as listed here. The ones at her site do work however.
The following in an example of her link that works for the first one in the list.
A difference seems to be a ? near the beginning that is missing.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FE53DEE7870921017E63678647B78281F56F45A2&dn=blue.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:48 am

daveburton

The torrent URIs don’t work for me with uTorrent.
I thought that perhaps I was doing something wrong with uTorrent, so I made links out of them, here, but they still don’t work for me.

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:49 am

Dr T G Watkins

Well done Donna.
Yet another arrow in the mammoth that is the IPPC. Eventually, eventually it will fall.

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:50 am

Roy UK

JonasM says:
January 8, 2013 at 7:23 am
Note: I had to change the magnet URI’s to :
“magnet:?xt=urn…” to make them work in uTorrent.
(Add the question mark)

I copied and pasted the links into a new firefox tab, added the question mark as suggested by JonasM and the links all work in utorrent.

Sam the First says:
January 8, 2013 at 7:18 am
Re your Prince Charles comment there is no fool like an old fool and he fits both descriptions.
If the Prince’s ideas were clothes he would be in rags today. Would his courtiers tell him?

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:52 am

JonasM

daveburton : I’m using uTorrent 3.2.3 on Windows, and the links you posted work fine. Maybe upgrade your client?

On Transparancy:
I can say without question given [you’re] not with the Greenpeace agenda they will be totally transparent when they tell you that your not welcome any longer inside Greenpeace.
“Your kind is not welcome” “You right wing baby killer vietnam vet” “Get lost or else”
That after getting the life membership.
“Flushed That”
Their agenda too is transparent should you care to see.

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:56 am

iskoob

Pokerguy:
Your idea deserves serious consideration, I think.
I expect that kind of statistic (the huge percentage of the scientific community that rejects climate alarmism) might be a very persuasive number to have at our fingertips, but for the wrong reasons.
I think we’ve all had the experience of trying to explain to a believer, at some point, that consensus isn’t evidence. (I used to say, “consensus is not proof”, but that’s too weak—it’s not evidence, period.)
As it becomes increasingly clear how many scientists are on our “side” and it occurs to us that the consensus fallacy would support climate calmism, not alarmism, it raises a real moral dilemma: do we stoop to using it ourselves? Are we willing to persuade innocent bystanders that way, or would that make us no better than the reprehensible Naomi Oreskes?
Thoughts?

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 7:56 am

GeologyJim

Marvelous! It’s most reassuring to see that a few brave souls still exist to “commit acts of journalism”
I hope your courage can inspire another generation to abandon popular agendas, investigate, and report the facts.
Forget Woodward-Bernstein – we need more Donnas.

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:00 am

geran

Reminds me of “Climategate”–both versions. We are soooo lucky to have whistleblowers. Thanks to all.
“Santagate”???

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:03 am

Dario from NW Italy

Really well done, Donna!
and God bless (and protect) that anonymous whistleblower…
As a tribute to him, we should invent the “Schindler Price”, in response to the Nobel Price awarded to IPCC & others…

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:07 am

Matt

Worlds most transparent organizations, Greenpeace and the WWF will be pleased as well…
Good work, Donna!

Donna, I heard your speech at the ICCC8 in München and was very impressed by all the work you had done to expose the “delinquent teenager”. This again will give a lot of work, but I am sure the results will be a more transparant exposure of all the behind the scene manipulations at the IPCC… Thanks a lot!

I don’t see any chapter referring to the science — current assessment, recent developments, etc. Oh, that’s right, the science is settled!

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:26 am

Frank K.

“Second, the IPCC hasn’t learned a thing from the Himalayan glacier scandal. Under the guise of “scientific expert review,” it recently permitted aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying of its authors by WWF employees and other activists. The draft version of the Working Group 2 report currently lists publications produced by the WWF and Greenpeace among its end-of-chapter references.”
This should not come as any surprise to anyone. WWF and IPCC working together with the climate indu$try to taint AR5?? Perish the thought!

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:28 am

pokerguy

iskoob,
I really appreciate your well considered response. Sometimes I get really frustrated because I simply can’t understand why there doesn’t seem to be some enthusiasm for what to my admittedly small brain, would seem an obviously effective counter-stratgy. I would answer your question this way: we would not be using consensus thinking to buttress a scientific hypothesis that seems at odds with real world data, but simply demonstrating that there are doubts concerning that hypothesis. I’m not smart enough to reduce this to some sort of formulation, but it nonetheless seems an intuitively valid defense. Skepticism and doubt are the very foundations of good science. Where it exists, it needs to be acknowledged..
Make any sense?

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:31 am

iskoob

pokerguy,
Good explanation. I’ll leave it for others to make arguments for/against such a strategy.
Personally, whenever I point out the apparent size of the counter-consensus (though we don’t know the figures accurately enough), I always try to be explicit about what it proves.
The sheer number of scientific dissenters proves, I say:
1. that the “consensus” is a myth and that the Goreskes crowd are dishonest, and are therefore not to be trusted.
2. that scientists clearly don’t have to be paid shills or cranks in order to find the (supposedly overwhelming) evidence for CAGW wanting, unless one seriously believes that (for example) half the English-speaking world’s meteorologists and most of its geologists are paid shills or cranks—and this stretches the bounds of credulity
More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own). Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer? How? What works, what doesn’t work?

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 10:39 am

Jenn Oates

I love the internet’s ability to crowdsource things like this. I can’t wait to read about it as it’s all being evaluated.
Awesome.

Sorry to be so thick: but WHO’S DONNA?!
A journalist?? A climatologist?? A skeptical environmental campaigner??
Sorry to be so unworldly, but this chappie on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean doesn’t have a clue who she is!![go and have a look at her site. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/08/the-secret-santa-leak/ . . she is quite awesome . . mod]

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:42 am

Rhys Jaggar

Based on the headings you have listed in the article, this is one of the first definitive pieces of evidence for unelected one world government through the auspices of the UN.
I do not believe one single party in my country was elected on the platform that ‘we will abrogate all responsibility for the economic implications of climate change, if it is indeed significant enough to warrant major economic changes, to an unelected arm of the United Nations called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.’
I also object to the fact that the UK Ambassador to the UN has absolutely no ability to influence this in any way, short of recommending to HMG to withdraw from the UN until it is dismantled. This would be a highly ‘courageous’ suggestion in the absence of the USA, Canada, Russia, China and India doing likewise at the same time.
In my judgement the question needs to be asked as to where in the world a court exists with sufficient power to stop the IPCC acting, based on false science, unspoken redistributionist agendas and using unelected demagoguery.
If it doesn’t exist, then one has to ask why the UN should be allowed to continue to exist, not subject to the checks and balances of world society.
The question must be asked: ‘on whose authority should a never-ending blank cheque to impoverish the USA and Europe be authorised? Avaricious recipient governments in developing nations is not a good enough reason……’

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:50 am

paul matthews

Inclusion of reviewer comments suggests this is from an IPCC insider, unlike the wg1 leak that was from a reviewer.

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:54 am

DannyL

I wonder how much good it does to publish this stuff ahead of time. Gives them too much opportunity to change the message or take the bad bits out. I think that releasing the infamous 10 10 child murdering video was a mistake of a similar sort. It alerted the ‘Faithfull’ to the reality that their film would not go down well with the public, so they pulled it, and most of the public never got to see what these lunatics had produced. Better to have let them go ahead and publish on MSM. Is this ‘Leak’ a similar mistake?

Vote Up0Vote Down

January 8, 2013 8:57 am

William Wilson

It is time for a real Open Source Climate Science program. ALL data, methods, models, results would be fully available and repeatable to anyone who cares to look. The pieces are there.
Anyone have a robust MySQL server available to host the data from these files?

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy